[lit-ideas] Re: Auerbach on Mimesis
- From: Andy <min.erva@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 18:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
wokshevs@xxxxxx wrote: Please vide specific replies to Andy's questions
-------------->
Quoting Andy :
> Can the philosophical proposition lie in the spirit of something?
------------> No.
Andy: Then what is philosophy? It's intangible, it's a concept, a
contention, a set of contentions, a way of looking at the world. If philosophy
doesn't lie in the spirit of something, where does it lie? Outside the spirit,
which is to say in the body, the material realm?
>Isn't that [the]
> point of philosophy [...?]
--------------> No.
Andy: What is the point of philosophy if not an effort to organize and
understand the world? Perhaps there is no point? It's just a game, an
intellectual exercise for its own sake, like suduku?
> or is philosophy just isms unrelated to reality?
-------------> No. (You're operating with a false dichotomy there.)
Andy: 'No' says nothing. What is the false dichotomy and can the answer be
phrased in Einstein-esq simplicity, which is to say, minus the buzz words. I
doubt that Socrates would have explained the world with a string of ism's, but
maybe I'm wrong.
> It
> seems to me that From Here to Eternity captured some of what John wrote
> below.
--------------> If you could specify what you mean by "some," we may be able to
begin a philosophical consideration of it.
Andy: For starters, the orderliness of the world of the movie, where the bad
are punished and justice prevails. Is that a Judeo Christian niceness that we
want to believe underlies our world when in fact it works only occasionally for
some people? The absurdity of Prewit's being punished severely for doing the
right thing yet his love for his punisher (the Army, which ultimately is his
family, his gang) doesn't waiver. Ultimately that's a rejection of the Kantian
golden rule, isn't it?
For years I explained the world through psychological terms, and I still find
it's the only explanation that really makes sense. Having said that, recently
more and more I've been moving into what I consider 'philosophical'
explanations that make sense of the world to me. The absurdity, the
meaningless onto which we so desperately try to impose meaning and purpose.
> But then maybe that's why I'm not a philosopher.
---------------> All humans are philosophers. Though some philosophers don't
know they are philosophers. (Is there a valid conclusion that follows from
these premises?)
Andy: I don't agree at all. The vast overwhelming majority, including
intellectuals, don't have a thought in their heads outside of how to make more
money or impress thus and such. If that's not the case, why is the world the
mess that it is today and always has been?
Remember: Life is a syllogism.
Andy: If you can supply the syllogism in Eisteinian terms, I'll have it
embroidered into a pillow.
---------------------------------
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total
Access, No Cost.
Other related posts:
